| Literature DB >> 33339513 |
José S Meza1,2, Kostas Bourtzis3, Antigone Zacharopoulou4, Angeliki Gariou-Papalexiou4, Carlos Cáceres3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Area-wide integrated pest management programs (AW-IPM) incorporating sterile insect technique (SIT) have been successful in suppressing populations of different fruit fly species during the last six decades. In addition, the development of genetic sexing strains (GSS) for different fruit fly species has allowed for sterile male-only releases and has significantly improved the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the SIT applications. The South American Fruit Fly Anastrepha fraterculus (Diptera: Tephritidae) is a major agricultural pest attacking several fruit commodities. This impedes international trade and has a significant negative impact on the local economies. Given the importance of sterile male-only releases, the development of a GSS for A. fraterculus would facilitate the implementation of an efficient and cost-effective SIT operational program against this insect pest species.Entities:
Keywords: Mass rearing; Mutation; Sterile insect technique; Translocation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33339513 PMCID: PMC7747363 DOI: 10.1186/s12863-020-00932-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Fig. 1Phenotype of wild type and mutant individuals of Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1
(a) results of inheritance mode experiments of mutants, (b) linkage analysis of red body (rb), white eye (we) and black pupae (bp) mutants and (c) GSS backcrossing to we and rb alleles in Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1
| Inheritance crosses | F1 phenotype | F2 phenotypes | Total | X2 (3:1) | ||||||
| Wild type | mutant | |||||||||
| WT | all population WT | 302 | 297 | 91 | 88 | 778 | 1.65 | |||
| WT | 240 | 188 | 76 | 87 | 591 | 2.10 | ||||
| WT | 259 | 245 | 69 | 72 | 645 | 3.39 | ||||
| WT | 119 | 108 | 33 | 31 | 291 | 1.40 | ||||
| WT | 528 | 511 | 190 | 194 | 1423 | 0.16 | ||||
| WT | 446 | 439 | 155 | 148 | 1188 | 2.99 | ||||
| Linkage crosses | F1 phenotype | F2 phenotypes | Total | X2 (9:3:3:1) | ||||||
| WT | mutant | mutant | double mutant | |||||||
| all population WT | 997 | 3201 | 3612 | 75 | 1753 | 14.43 | ||||
| 1002 | 3443 | 3632 | 82 | 1791 | 10.43 | |||||
| 559 | 1923 | 1771 | 61 | 989 | 0.63 | |||||
| Backcrossing | WT | Total | ||||||||
| GSS-89 | 250 | 241 | 181 | 183 | 231 | 211 | 216 | 187 | 1700 | |
Hypothesis 3:1, X20.05, 1 = 3.841
Hypothesis 9:3:3:1, X20.05, df = 3 = 7.82
WT Wild type; mutant1 = we; mutant2 = bp; mutant3 = rb
Percentage of recombination per generation of the different Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1 T(Y;bp)/bp genetic sexing strains (GSS)
| GSS | Generation | Male | Female | Total recombination (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT | recombinant (%) | WT | recombinant (%) | |||||
| 172 | Parentales | 21 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 10 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| F1 | 397 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 354 | 0.28 | 0.13 | |
| F2 | 455 | 1 | 0.22 | 2 | 447 | 0.45 | 0.33 | |
| F3 | 302 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 261 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F4 | 151 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 137 | 0.72 | 0.35 | |
| F5 | 76 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 92 | 1.08 | 0.59 | |
| F6 | 303 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 125 | 1.57 | 0.47 | |
| F7 | 251 | 0 | 0.00 | 9 | 309 | 2.83 | 1.58 | |
| F8 | 597 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 510 | 0.20 | 0.09 | |
| 119 | Parentales | 15 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 14 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| F1 | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 70 | 1.41 | 0.63 | |
| F2 | 254 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 276 | 0.36 | 0.19 | |
| F3 | 245 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 237 | 0.84 | 0.41 | |
| F4 | 218 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 169 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F5 | 83 | 1 | 1.19 | 2 | 36 | 5.26 | 2.46 | |
| F6 | 271 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 103 | 2.83 | 0.80 | |
| F7 | 634 | 0 | 0.00 | 22 | 718 | 2.97 | 1.60 | |
| F8 | 870 | 0 | 0.00 | 6 | 887 | 0.67 | 0.34 | |
| 89 | Parentales | 22 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 17 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| F1 | 82 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 63 | 1.56 | 0.68 | |
| F2 | 116 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 89 | 2.20 | 0.97 | |
| F3 | 265 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 214 | 0.47 | 0.21 | |
| F4 | 139 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 110 | 0.90 | 0.40 | |
| F5 | 66 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 32 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F6 | 23 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F7 | 140 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 164 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F8 | 461 | 0 | 0.00 | 1 | 398 | 0.25 | 0.12 | |
| 33 | Parentales | 8 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 5 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| F1 | 18 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 9 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F2 | 44 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 28 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F3 | 72 | 2 | 2.70 | 2 | 69 | 2.82 | 2.76 | |
| F4 | 29 | 0 | 0.00 | 0 | 14 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| F5 | 79 | 1 | 1.25 | 2 | 51 | 3.77 | 2.26 | |
| F6 | 409 | 0 | 0.00 | 4 | 203 | 1.93 | 0.65 | |
| F7 | 437 | 0 | 0.00 | 3 | 331 | 0.90 | 0.39 | |
| F8 | 263 | 0 | 0.00 | 2 | 178 | 1.11 | 0.45 | |
Fig. 2Polytene chromosome of the Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1 strain T[(Y;VI bp+)/bp]-89 (GSS-89) . a Reference map of chromosome VI (section 85–100). b The part of the VI chromosome which is involved in the (Y;A) translocation
Quality control indices (Mean ± SE) of different Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1 strains under laboratory rearing environment
| Strain | Fertility (%) | Egg to pupae survival (%) | Pupa to adult survival (%) | Overall fitness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WT | 81.00 ± 1.81 a | 73.00 ± 1.34 a | 96.72 ± 0.92 a | 0.57 ± 0.01 a |
| 68.60 ± 2.03 b | 49.00 ± 2.21 b | 84.07 ± 5.01 ab | 0.28 ± 0.01 b | |
| GSS-172 | 45.50 ± 5.75 cd | 29.00 ± 6.14 bc | 86.84 ± 4.55 ab | 0.12 ± 0.04 c |
| GSS-119 | 47.80 ± 3.93 cd | 35.50 ± 5.94 bc | 77.04 ± 4.04 b | 0.14 ± 0.03 bc |
| GSS-89 | 54.20 ± 4.91 bc | 29.80 ± 4.61 bc | 83.30 ± 2.83 ab | 0.14 ± 0.03 bc |
| GSS-33 | 37.20 ± 2.53 d | 21.70 ± 2.35 c | 90.72 ± 2.51 ab | 0.07 ± 0.01 c |
Overall fitness = (Fertility/100) (egg to pupae/100) (pupae to adult/100). For each column, lower case letters represent significant differences between strains (P < 0.05)